Monday, April 16, 2012

The NRA Convention - Armed while Old, Fat, White and Crabby 3

Armed, and dangerous to everyone around them, including to themselves.

The dangerously paranoid delusions that have the armed and dangerous fat, white, elderly crowd ready to shoot at the wrong things was illustrated in the following interview. It makes it clear why the right wing crazies need to give themselves legal cover when they shoot unarmed, not threatening people, especially people for whom they harbor an unwarranted fear. The Shoot First laws are in place to help them get out of accountability for their mistakes, as has been demonstrated by not only the Trayvon Martin killing, but a wide variety of other Shoot First killings.

This is what the American Gun Nuts, as in crazy people who are not objectively connected to reality when it comes to properly identifying danger looks like to a neutral observer who represents the rest of the civilized world's view of danger in the context of long term declining crime rates, including violent crime, especially in our large cities where crime rates previously were highest:

As was said by the moderator, no, we don't feel that Obama is one of us with regard to guns. He has done nothing other than Dumb and Spurious, but we know that the next president will nominate at least two justices to the Supreme Court. Your side doesn't see that as important?

But here we have a chubby black fellow talking about how he doesn't understand guns. He says that it's because he's British. What a shock. He doesn't understand our history. He doesn't understand the importance of America in world history. And he doesn't see how guns matter in this society. Of course, he tries to make everything about race, so he has learned the talking points of the left in this country.

By the way, Dog Gone, the law that you object to is not a "Shoot First" law. It's a Stand Your Ground law. We're not allowed to blast away just because someone looks funny. There has to be a direct threat of death or serious injury. Your side loves to leave that part out. What laws like this do is remove the duty to attempt to run away. That means that some overeager prosecutor has less chance of making a case that a good citizen should have tried to outrun a thug or a bullet. This is one of the reasons that I accuse your side of having more sympathy for criminals than for good people.

Look, Obama said he wants to ban “assault weapons”. In answer to the question “where does that sense come from?” she should have answered, “from his mouth.” He said it during his campaign, he said it after he was elected, he printed it on the whitehouse.gov website, and the president elect website where it remains. Holder repeated this many times in the spring of 09 in response to Mexico’s drug violence. There was heavy backlash at that time, from the public (also reflected in sales figures) and from blue dog democrats who wanted to hold their seats. Shortly after, Holder and Obama dropped the AWB talk, and it was removed from the whitehouse.gov website. He has been fairly silent since, but silence isn’t exactly support. It is not like he shows up at NRA conventions or says he now thinks AWBs are bad policy. I still think he is anti-gun (an actual veto of gun control legislation, or signing stand alone pro-gun legislation would change my opinion), but he is not rabidly anti-gun. He has his priorities and gun control is not at the top. Bloomberg, Feinstein, Rendell, are another breed. I am sure Obama agrees with them 100%, but he is more willing to let it go.

Do I think Obama is a bigger threat in a second term? In terms of court nominees, of course he is. Pushing for/signing legislation? Maybe. I am more inclined to believe he dropped the talk in response to the 65 pro gun democrats who wanted to keep their house seats and said they would oppose it. That will be true in his second term too.